mr. chairman , i yield myself such time as i may consume . 
mr. chairman , the gentleman from california and i have been working together for the last several months to try to find common ground on the amendments to the endangered species act . 
as the chairman knows and many of my colleagues , i came to our discussions with the view that the esa does not need amendment , that most of its problems could be fixed by additional appropriations or administrative changes that this administration is not willing to make . 
recognizing reality , i decided to enter into good-faith negotiations with my chairman , and that is what they were . 
i salute the manner in which the gentleman from california conducted himself and the manner in which his staff treated the minority during this entire process . 
it was a fair process ; and , indeed , when we had problems , we found open communication was received from the other side of the aisle , and i appreciate that . 
in the end , however , we could not reach agreement . 
i do not support the pending legislation , but i must admit that we have come a long way . 
yet we still have differences that divide us , differences in some instances that i have yet to discover . 
in fact , the manager 's amendment has been redrafted so many times , the latest version is still hot off the presses . 
i wish the bill , because of these latest changes in the manager 's amendment , were not being rushed to the house floor . 
i wish that the driving force was not the zeal to pass anything that could be labeled esa reform , but instead could be labeled truly species recovery . 
with a little more time to consider how much this bill is going to cost the american taxpayers , we could at least have had a chance to see how much we are going to lose in the exchange . 
in the last several hours , the bill passed out of the committee has completely blown apart . 
for example , the manager 's amendment abandons the definition of jeopardizing a species we agreed upon in committee . 
instead , the secretary of the interior will use existing regulations which allow federal actions to proceed , even if they will reduce the likelihood of a species ' survival and recovery . 
the survival standard is akin to keeping a patient on life support without any chance of recovery . 
according to the congressional budget office , if this is enacted into law , it will increase direct spending and would cost almost $ 3 billion to implement from the years 2006 to 2010 . 
so in my view , this bill offers endangered species less protection at far greater cost . 
not only was fiscal responsibility thrown to the wind in this process , but we have turned back the clock to an era in which ddt was commonly known as `` drop dead twice. '' h.r. 3824 includes a provision adopted in the committee on resources that would repeal the endangered species act provisions that protect threatened and endangered species from the harmful impact of pesticides . 
h.r. 3824 would insulate those who use pesticides from the endangered species act prohibitions against killing endangered and threatened species . 
as long as corporations comply with federal requirements to register pesticide users , they will have no obligation to meet the requirements in the endangered species act . 
the economic and environmental implications of this provision are staggering . 
but where the budget really leaks is from the gaping hole created by a new , potentially open-ended entitlement program for property developers and speculators . 
this , i might add , is where we truly broke down in our negotiations . 
section 14 would establish the dangerous precedent that private individuals must be paid to comply with an environmental law . 
if this language were applied to local zoning , no mayor , no city council could govern a community without fear that their decisions might drive the community into financial ruin . 
this section pays citizens to comply with the law . 
what is next , paying citizens to wear seat belts , to comply with speed limits , to pay their taxes ? 
this bill also contains provisions that would severely weaken the consultation process , the very heart of the esa . 
under current law , the fish and wildlife service analyzes a proposed action to gauge if it is likely to place the continued existence of a species in jeopardy . 
the process is grounded in science and must meet reasonable criteria . 
this bill , quite to the contrary of current practice , wipes away any standards for that process . 
it wipes away review by wildlife experts . 
gone . 
proponents claim this change is justified because of the service 's heavy workload . 
instead of fixing the problem by giving fish and wildlife more resources , the bill simply changes the rules and undermines species recovery . 
finally , mr. chairman , i oppose another provision that would further weaken the section 7 consultation requirement when applied to state cooperative agreements . 
under section 10 of h.r. 3824 , no additional consultations will be required once the secretary enters into a cooperative agreement with a state . 
it is questionable whether consultation would ever occur , even in those situations causing jeopardy to a listed species . 
these provisions , taken together , raise a whole host of questions and concerns . 
what is clear is that this bill will not improve species ' ability to recover . 
quite likely it will result in more extinctions , the loss of more of the creatures god has placed in our care . 
frankly , we can not be good stewards of his creation and pass this bill . 
for these reasons , mr. chairman , i strongly oppose h.r. 3824 . 
however , i have worked , as i said in the beginning , well with the gentleman from california on this bill ; and i do salute his tenaciousness , his patience , and his courage in bringing this bill to the floor . 
i would have preferred we keep trying to resolve our differences , but that is not the situation we are in today , so i would urge my colleagues to oppose h.r. 3824 . 
mr. chairman , i reserve the balance of my time . 
